Introducing Michael Clayton

I like genre flicks. I like movies movies that don't pretend to be anymore than what they are; horror, action, science-fiction, courtroom drama, serial killer thrillers, and cop movies - I like all those genres and I can point to hundreds of examples of each that are excellent films.

There is something to be said for the practice of taking a formula and shining it until its glossy sheen almost disguises it as something entirely different. That would be the case with MICHAEL CLAYTON, George Clooney's new legal thriller that looks and feels like a standard Legal Drama, but has been made with such care and intelligence, that it almost feels like its transcending that genre to become something more. A message flick? Perhaps, though I think the film's director and writer, Tony Gilroy, would sneer if people thought this movie was delivering a message of any sort. Its too cynical and diabolical to be strictly a message movie.

Like all legal dramas, this one is talky, but nobody here is given to speech making. People talk, but its about business, about spinning, about making and losing money. I love movies where the filmmakers have a particular ear for the profession they're portraying. Michael Clayton has a hell of an ear. There is a lot of corporate speak, a lot of talk about legal issues, dividing lines, things like that.

But, again, this movie isn't about a larger issue. Its about Michael Clayton and George Clooney is very good here. Much better than he ever was in Syriana. Clooney is an actor that I really like - I think there is a place for him in movies like this, movies that Michael Douglas made in the late 80's and early to mid-nineties. He's got that masculine, intelligent, authoritative thing that Douglas used to have, where you think the guy could handle anything, but spend a moment really listening to him and you sense the turmoil brewing beneath the surface.

I like how Clooney changes here. The movie is about a personal shift for him, but Clooney never makes it overly obvious that Clayton is changing and its a credit to Tony Gilroy that Clayton's great discovery is not that he's a bad person, its that he is who he is - Tigers cannot change their stripes, but they can do the right thing from time to time.

I really liked this movie. Its the most entertaining movie I've seen this season. Its not the best, but it is an incredibly polished exercise that leads to a lot of familiar places. It doesn't insult the audience's intelligence, but notice its small details and little ways in which it hooks you. Notice how its a legal thriller with no real interest in "The Case" itself. The movie doesn't have a lot to say about the legal system, instead, its more of a movie about people and their careers - how people ARE their jobs.

This is a common theme of Michael Mann films, which this reminded me of. All of Mann's films are about doing a job, being your career, and fuck everything else. I like the theme of people living that lifestyle, but breaking away from it. Even if its as subtle as it is in Michael Clayton.

1987 Dead-Bang: Don Johnson, What?

People don't rent movies with Don Johnson on the cover. Nobody strolls down the aisles of a rental store looking for Don Johnson movies or even pick up a DVD that has Don Johnson on its cover. This is why the guy did Nash Bridges (read: garbage) for years - because he had no film career. Never.

Now, I'm not ragging on the guy. I personally think that he could possibly, maybe, perhaps be slightly underrated. I could be killed for saying that. People have killed for less.

I have virtually no basis for saying that he is underrated...except, well, for GUILTY AS SIN, where he plays a perfectly good villain, in fact, quite a good, nasty SOB. Some people might say he overacts, but I think he does incredibly well in that film and overwhelms, completely, Rebecca De Mornay, when she was still considered an actress and not just boobs.

Another example of a solid Don Johnson is this little flick - DEAD BANG. Here is a really good, rock-hard cop thriller that is astoundingly well-directed by a master of the action genre, John Frankenheimer. He directed the original Manchurian Candidate, Ronin, The French Connection 2 (read: spectacular sequel) and Grand Prix. This guy can handle taut, realistic action sequences. He wrote the book.

The movie stars Don Johnson as a dogged, alcoholic cop (is there another kind), who finds himself on the trail of some vicious white supremacists. On top of his alcholism, he has a clear rage issue and a divorce from a wife who rarely allows him to see his kids. All he has is his job and Frankenheimer goes to great lengths not to glorify it like other cop flicks - Johnson's cop clearly makes very little money, has nothing outside of his job (ie: personal relationships, hobbies) aside from the bottle. His is a shit existence. So, when he finds a case, he works it to death.

This particular case takes him all over the country and into middle-America where he joins forces, reluctantly, with a buttoned-up FBI agent played by William Forsythe. They really hate each other, but come to respect one another, as these things go. The difference is; theirs is strictly a professional respect, as they could never really be friends, a la Lethal Weapon or 48hrs. Johnson curses up a storm and truly offends Forsythe and their interactions, with rage-fueled Johnson, are really funny.

But, what makes this one unique are the tiny details that Frankenheimer includes: Johnson not getting wire transfers to pay for his trips, Johnson having to REALLY answer to his superiors, Johnson bullying a psychiatrist, and in the film's classic scene - Johnson, severely hungover, puking all over a suspect while he interrogates him. Its gross and hilarious because Movie Cops don't get so hungover they puke on suspects after a footchase. Well, in this movie, they do.

In the Valley of Elah

Let me just get this out of the way; Tommy Lee Jones is the shit. I know that he has a great year of flicks lined up, what with this and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, but damn, this guy has given some superb performances.

JFK: Jones steals the film as the cunning Clay Shaw
Under Siege: One of the great villains - took the film to another level
The Missing: Saved the film from being awful
The Fugitive: His definitive, amazing, Historical performance as a dogged hunter who begins to identify with his prey.

Here, though, in ELAH, Jones gives a career definer. We have seen a number of very physical performances this year - acting that requires much more than the proper voice inflection or suggestion - no, these performances rely on body language, movement, the way that an actor carries himself.

Here, Jones internalizes everything and I don't think I've ever seen an actor's face reflect so much pain so effectively. Watching the film, you worry that he might explode, and you hope that he might allow himself some type of catharsis because there is no way that one man can hold so much emotion inside.

I should point this out now: Jones' performance is easily the best I've seen this year. I know that I raved about Viggo's and Pitt's in their respective films, but honestly, Tommy Lee Jones leaves them so far behind that there's no point in comparing them.

Picture Tommy Lee Jones giving a great performance, one that you liked (The Fugitive), now, imagine that great piece of acting multiplied by infinity, because that is the quality of acting we are seeing here. I thought those other two actors were great, but if we were to talk Oscar Race, Jones would win without losing any votes to the others.

You're rolling your eyes, right?

Its true. I would also like to heap some praise on Charlize Theron. I have loved Charlize Theron since 2 Days in the Valley. I have wanted her to be my wife since The Italian Job. She is very good in Elah. Not nearly as good as MONSTER, or as grandstanding as NORTH COUNTRY, but she is incredibly solid here as she underplays her role fantastically. Her and Jones work well off one another. I feel like Theron has the career that Ashley Judd might have had.

Lets talk about Paul Haggis now. Everyone knows that he wrote and directed CRASH - a very good movie. Not great, but very solid. He also wrote the great MILLION DOLLAR BABY. In fact, I think his major directorial influence must be Clint Eastwood of MILLION DOLLAR BABY. Here, he uses the same cinematographer as Eastwood and achieves the same stark, plain, and contained atmosphere of that film. The movie is full of shadows and dark corners, lit and unlit faces.

His script is very good. I don't know a screenwriter who so cleanly sets up his films, defines the A,B, and C plots, and ties them up as well as Haggis.

Up to a point, Haggis has a great film going. The film never overplays itself by making it an elaborate mystery, a thriller, or an anti-war flick (which it is).

Then, at the exact point when the film should end, it doesn't and Haggis makes a colossal miscalculation that goes a long way towards spoiling the entire movie.

Out of nowhere, Haggis cues some manipulative pop-song in an effort to draw tears, much like he did in CRASH, and the movie falls dead. The audience is totally drawn out of the plight and the movie destroys a lot of what it has accomplished.

I still liked the film very much, but if ever a film cried out to not end with a pop song, The Valley of Elah is it. I highly recommend it, though, and if you want to see truly great, subtle, masterful acting - see Tommy Lee Jones here.

Changing Lanes: Underrated, Undervalued

I was toying with the idea of employing a new weekly post called "Unfounded." Cool, right? It would deal with films that I think are fantastic, but for some reason went unnoticed by the mainstream.

It happens every year.

A film will be released to either good/mediocre reviews, I'll see it, love it, and find no other admirers for me to share my opinions with. Sometimes these films are embraced by critics or the Oscars, a la The Insider (a movie i will write about soon), and sometimes they're huge successes initially, but fade away.

This movie, CHANGING LANES, it is a fucking great movie - the best movie of 2002. I stick by this remark. I think I have only seen the movie once in its entirety - I do that because I can love a movie so much on a first viewing that I don't want to tarnish the first-impression by nit-picking it to death. That does not mean that the movie won't stand up to repeat viewings.

When I saw this movie, it gave me everything I seemed to be looking for in a film at that very moment: smart people saying smart things about honesty, integrity, character, and life. The movie isn't filled with grand setpieces or manipulative suspense - no - this one has these quietly powerful moments where every character gets a moment to say something important, these little speeches which ultimately define who they are and what they stand for. They're sort of jaw-dropping because these characters really stop and really try to articulate their feelings, not necessarily with eloquence, but with the words they have at their disposal in their respective vocabularies. I mean, look at this:

" It's like you go to the beach. You go down to the water. It's a little cold. You're not sure you want to go in. There's a pretty girl standing next to you. She doesn't want to go in either. She sees you, and you know that if you just asked her her name, you would leave with her. Forget your life, whoever you came with, and leave the beach with her. And after that day, you remember. Not every day, every week... she comes back to you. It's the memory of another life you could have had. Today is that girl"

See, people may or may not really talk like this - it doesn't matter - because of how the scene is filmed and how the entire movie builds up to this moment of insight - and sometimes just the ability to say how you're feeling, no matter how abstract - sometimes thats enough to settle old scores.

I love that about this movie because every relationship comes to a turning point that hinges on total and complete honesty.

The ending might be a big false note, but the movie up till that point is a knockout.

"Look at my red hands and my mean face..."

I suggest that Brad Pitt is a good actor, one who challenges himself only sometimes. I thought he was very good in SEVEN. I thought he was funny in SNATCH - a movie that ages horribly. I thought he was terrific in TWELVE MONKEYS. Aside from these flicks, I have a hard time recommending any of his other roles - that includes Fight Club and Babel.

I think he is a moody actor; brooding, introspective, contemplative. It is hard for actors like this to find meaty roles, especially when they're a sex symbol of Pitts caliber. An actor like this needs to find roles that exploit their celebrity, play off of their larger than life persona, and give the actor a chance to brood, to act with their eyes, body language and sexuality.

Pitt has found the PERFECT role in a near perfect film. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is not a small miracle or a minor masterpiece - this film is an epic accomplishment; it is gritty, raw, beautiful, poetic, lyrical, and occasionally mesmerizing. It exists somewhere between historically accurate and fabled history - that exact place where a legend is born. Technically, it reminds you of a western that John Cassavetes might have made - or something Robert Altman did make with McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

The movie has a dream-like quality, most of which is due to the STUNNING cinematography, which restores the western to its iconic roots. Every shot seems carefully modulated to enhance the film's moody, dazed sensation. I can honestly say that this is one of the single most beautiful films I have ever seen.

Everyone knows the story, so I won't talk too much about plot except to say that Robert Ford(Casey Affleck - shockingly good) worms his way into the James Gang, lead by Frank and Jesse James. He is obsessed with the James' celebrity and spends most of the movie trying to get close to Pitt's western icon.

Pitt, well, Pitt's performance is not unlike the excellent Viggo Mortensen performance I reviewed last week - it feeds off his physicality, his sheer presence. The difference with Pitt's role is that he is truly unnerving sometimes. He enters a room and sort of floats around, taking control the space. There is one scene, where he interrogates a member of his gang whom he suspects has betrayed him - Jesse James was paranoid and capable of sudden, vicious violence - in this scene, Pitt acts with his eyes, solely his eyes, and you can sense all that he is capable of in that very moment and Andrew Domanik (director) lets his camera linger on Pitt's face, lets him think, and the tension grows as we read his mind.

That's something I love about this film. People complain of its length and its self-indulgence, but this film features people who think, who just sit and contemplate their actions, their lives - people really do this. Andrew Domanik allows his characters to think and that's something Cassavetes would do, although some of his characters didn't have the capacity to think, which was typically their downfall.

Something tells me that this will be another amazing film that goes unnoticed, perhaps even at awards time. That is a shame because here is a film so well crafted that it will immediately shoot up the lists of my ALL-TIME great list. It really is that good and Pitt really is that good. Its one of those SCARFACE roles or John Belushi roles, where just the image of him allowing snakes to coil around his arm will be inconic.

I hope people don't miss this one. I know it is long and slow to develop, but the care and skill on display here is top-notch - perhaps GREATNESS has truly been achieved. This is what I was referring to when I said that a film cannot be judged solely by the genre it is working within - this, so far this year, has been the best film I've seen.

Amazing Year For Movies

Here's some insight into me: I LOVE movies and because I love them so much, I tend to give every movie the benefit of the doubt...initially. Typically, I can find a way to enjoy every movie that I see; search out the positives, the things that a movie does well. I try and look at a movie according to what kind of genre-example its making - if its a horror film, then I look at its skill in terrifying me, or if its a twisty courtroom flick, then how well can it blindside me with its suprises? Sometimes, though, films cannot be defined by their genre, no, sometimes a film can feature such a higher quality of execution; be it writing, directing, acting, or just the ability to entertain, that it immediately becomes a classic.

Now, at first, when I exit a theater, I have my initial reaction, which I usually call my brother with. Nine times out of ten, my initial response is one of overwhelming praise because I simply enjoy going to the movies so much. Its my drug of choice. Pauline Kael called this "getting durnk on movies," which pretty much makes me an alcoholic. So, once I come down from that initial buzz, I think a little more clearly about a movie's true success.

With that out of the way, let met consider that almost every review that I've written so far has been positive. At first, I wondered if that was because I'm so partial to the movie-going experience that it doesn't really matter if the movie's good or not? Then, I realized that filmgoers everywhere might be experiencing something very special this year, something not unlike a phenomenon. Could it be that we are experiencing the GREATEST YEAR for films in quite some time. Perhaps ever? I think there is a strong case to be made here because the quality of the filmmaking that I have seen so far this year has been astounding, and the year is far from over, especially in regard to movies. I've already seen The Bourne Ultimatum, Into The Wild, The Lookout, Knocked Up, The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford, Once, and Eastern Promises. And I know just how much there is to look forward too - notably THERE WILL BE BLOOD, Paul T. Anderson's new film, which some are already calling one of the greatest films ever - even comparing it to Citizen Cane?

I suspect that I may eat my words at the end of year, especially if some of these flicks don't pan out. As it is, though, where we stand right now - this year could be historical.

Oldie, but Goodie: INNERSPACE

Oh man, this one takes me back. Far back. I LOVED this movie as a kid. It had everything that a child looks for in their movies; excitement, wonder, cool technology, fun special-effects, and lead actors that even a kid could relate too.

Dennis Quaid and Martin Short invest so much energy into this movie that you can't help but join the fun. This is easily martin Short's finest hour on the big-screen. Sure, he's been funny before, but never this likable. He, very simply, is fantastic as the protagonist of this movie.

Quaid probably has the more difficult part, but his natural charisma carries the day.

Here's the plot and GET THIS: Tuck Pendelton (Quaid) plays a a reckless, disgraced test pilot who has fallen on hard times via booze, and a failed relationship with reporter - Meg Ryan! As the movie open, Tuck has become the lead pilot for a top-secret experiment that involves him being miniaturized along with a small, jet-powered capsule, and injected into a bunny rabbit. The idea is that Tuck will pilot this capsule through the bunny and science will evolve with this stunning technology.

Complications ensue. A group of rogue scientists looking to steal the technology, break into the lab, knock-out everybody, a wild bicycle vs. BMW chase follows, and somehow the miniaturized Quaid ends up inside of Martin Short's meek, hypochondriac, grocery store cashier.

This is truly a wild movie. The plot gets even thicker, with Short essentially being piloted by Quaid, as Quaid radios instruction and emotional support, while Short performs all manner of death-defying stunts. It is very cool. And Short even gets to form a romantic relationship with Ryan, as he falls in love with her - much to the chagrin of Quaid on the inside.

Things get really wild when an other capsule - with a Terminator-like villain - is injected into Short and a battle royale unfolds with Quaid.

What amazes me is the way that the movie finds new ways to be creative.The plot continues to add complications, solutions, characters, and humor. It is impossible to get bored or even frustrated because the leads are so damn likable. The special effects are amazing and hold up quite well today, too.

I cannot recommend this movie enough.

Into The Wild

What a sad movie. I was truly saddened by this film when its credits began to role. I am surprised at myself for saying so, too, as I found myself slightly uninvolved in the film's first hour.

I realized, though, that's how Sean Penn (director) wanted me to feel.

You don't like Emile Hirsch very much in this movie. You admire his drive and his resourcefulness, but you hate his irrationality and you question his sanity.

I, personally, aside from the character, didn't like the choice of Hirsch for the part. He seemed too young, too fresh-faced. I think a Ryan Gosling may have destroyed a part like this. As is, though, Hirsch does well to carry the film.

Everyone knows the story; Chris McCannlis graduates college, drops everything, and decides to hitchhike across the country to Alaska, where he plans to live off the land. Along the way, he meets various characters, all of whom help him in some way. All of whom, Chris helps in some way.

What's great about all of these characters, Specifically the ones portrayed by Catherine Keener, Vince Vaughn, and Hal Holbrook, is that they all see through Chris. They are all wiser than he and they all know what he is searching for, but are wise enough to know that he is searching in all of the wrong places.

I don't really know what to write about this movie. It affected me on a very primal level - some place between wonder and reality, some place between growing-up and being a grownup. You can relate to Chris' urge to extricate himself from the things of man because you know the innocence of that dream - a deserted island with nothing but coconuts and sand. However, in Chris' case, you know that there is nothing innocent about it - his vision comes from pain and anger. He wants to go because he has no idea how else to address the betrayal he feels from his parents, especially his father.

The movie is a great, great tragedy.

I must say, however, that I was touched almost to tears by two segments. One being a quiet scene between Catherine Keener and Hirsch, where Keener speaks about her own son, and you can sense that she knows all the mistakes she made with her own child, but can't bare to talk about them. It is great acting.

The other is the entire last act of the movie, when Hal Holbrook turns up as a sympathetic, lonely old man who takes Chris in. Hal Holbrook breaks your heart. Plain and simple. Every line is invested with a sense of want, need, and love. I suspect that we are seeing an Oscar-nominee here in Holbrook because this is the finest acting he has ever done. When he asks his final, devastating request of Chris, it is hard to not feel emotionally walloped.

See it. I think it needs to be seen. Good luck, though.